4 ms·

That wasn't how I meant it to come off, and apologies if it came out that way. I'm not suggesting that we don't acknowledge the problem. I'm more suggesting tha

by bpchaps 10y ago

That wasn't how I meant it to come off, and apologies if it came out that way. I'm not suggesting that we don't acknowledge the problem. I'm more suggesting that the problem is completely elsewhere, so locally addressing it does harm, rather than good. I have bipolar which causes ADD-like symptoms. When I try to address these problems with requests like "Please don't install three TVs in my peripheral vision", I'm often ignored, laughed at, or my problems are completely minimized (eg, "My cousin was given an ADD misdiagnosis at 2, so clearly that's the case with you", "Grow a thicker skin.", "Get used to it."). How can we expect to address gender issues if we can't even discuss mental health issues? The problem doesn't start and end in employment, so treating it as a problem within employment and implementing "fixes" on top of employment/employment culture will only make things more complex and exclusionary (particularly for the fringe). As with security, adding a layer of complexity can often have incredibly undesired results, while making the implementers (HR) feel good and secure with their "fix". It would be nice as a culture to address things from the problem sources, not just the symptoms. Any time I try to have similar serious discussions at workplaces, nobody wants to talk about the root. It's incredibly frustrating, particularly since protecting the fringe is something I'm personally vested in.

AdeptusAquinas 10y ago
Sure, though I would probably argue with saying addressing it does harm, rather than good. I agree that adding a quota or benefits or what have you is not a 'fix'. The problem isn't solved. And they may even cause problems of their own, like people getting positions based on who they are rather than their merit - though that's also certainly prevalent in majority populations as well (who hasn't worked with someone who is less capable but more photogenic, or happens to be 'someone's mate'?). But when there is an imbalance, or signs of general passive discrimination like with woman in tech, then initiatives that may not be perfect but which go some way towards helping address the problem ARE valid I think. And if there are problems with a given approach, well, that's what iteration and metrics/analysis are for right? Continuous Improvement?
- bpchaps 10y ago
  Building a school in a far off country without any prior experience in doing so can be good in the short term, but disastrous in the long run. These sorts of initiatives feel good and do what they're supposed to do, but just because it feels good and has a short term gain, doesn't mean it's a good answer and especially not the best answer. Replace "women" with "medicated schizophrenics" (no subtext there..) and you'll find that the problems are very similar. A solution that addresses workplace gender issues could potentially be used to address workplace mental health issues. Yet, instead of addressing the problem with a wide and possibly empathy based solution, we're stuck with incredibly specific solutions and enormous gaps where solutions should exist. I'm convinced that the whole issue stems from a lack of empathy in the workplace, and studies like [0] seem to hint towards the same. [0] http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-students-don-t-have-as-much-as-they-used-to http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-studen... Edit: another point to add - I once went to HR to talk about my mental health issues. The HR head who had a degree in psychology didn't know what bipolar was, outside of the fact that it's a thing that exists. The number of things wrong with that talk was mind boggling, especially after literally zero came from it. This was at a relatively large company, too.
  - AdeptusAquinas 10y ago
    Building a school in a far off country without any prior experiencing in doing so is bad, but certainly not the same issue as trying to artificially increase diversity in the work place right? Quite different contexts. I'm sorry that where you are seems like it doesn't deal with mental health very well (or at all, it sounds like). I'm from NZ and we have both very good gender equality (though not perfect, especially in tech) and very good support for those with health problems, psychological or otherwise (though again, not perfect - no government initiative can cover all scenarios and companies are fallible like anyone else). Rather than arguing that gender problems shouldn't be addressed or should not receive as much focus, shouldn't you be arguing 'great, now can we also work on other areas of difficulty like ADHD?'
    - bpchaps 10y ago

by bpchaps 10y ago

AdeptusAquinas 10y ago

Sure, though I would probably argue with saying addressing it does harm, rather than good. I agree that adding a quota or benefits or what have you is not a 'fix'. The problem isn't solved. And they may even cause problems of their own, like people getting positions based on who they are rather than their merit - though that's also certainly prevalent in majority populations as well (who hasn't worked with someone who is less capable but more photogenic, or happens to be 'someone's mate'?). But when there is an imbalance, or signs of general passive discrimination like with woman in tech, then initiatives that may not be perfect but which go some way towards helping address the problem ARE valid I think. And if there are problems with a given approach, well, that's what iteration and metrics/analysis are for right? Continuous Improvement?

bpchaps 10y ago
Building a school in a far off country without any prior experience in doing so can be good in the short term, but disastrous in the long run. These sorts of initiatives feel good and do what they're supposed to do, but just because it feels good and has a short term gain, doesn't mean it's a good answer and especially not the best answer. Replace "women" with "medicated schizophrenics" (no subtext there..) and you'll find that the problems are very similar. A solution that addresses workplace gender issues could potentially be used to address workplace mental health issues. Yet, instead of addressing the problem with a wide and possibly empathy based solution, we're stuck with incredibly specific solutions and enormous gaps where solutions should exist. I'm convinced that the whole issue stems from a lack of empathy in the workplace, and studies like [0] seem to hint towards the same. [0] http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-students-don-t-have-as-much-as-they-used-to http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-studen... Edit: another point to add - I once went to HR to talk about my mental health issues. The HR head who had a degree in psychology didn't know what bipolar was, outside of the fact that it's a thing that exists. The number of things wrong with that talk was mind boggling, especially after literally zero came from it. This was at a relatively large company, too.
- AdeptusAquinas 10y ago
  Building a school in a far off country without any prior experiencing in doing so is bad, but certainly not the same issue as trying to artificially increase diversity in the work place right? Quite different contexts. I'm sorry that where you are seems like it doesn't deal with mental health very well (or at all, it sounds like). I'm from NZ and we have both very good gender equality (though not perfect, especially in tech) and very good support for those with health problems, psychological or otherwise (though again, not perfect - no government initiative can cover all scenarios and companies are fallible like anyone else). Rather than arguing that gender problems shouldn't be addressed or should not receive as much focus, shouldn't you be arguing 'great, now can we also work on other areas of difficulty like ADHD?'
  - bpchaps 10y ago